Post-leftism

[BIXX]

In the socialism vs. leftism thread I realized I didn't know as much as I should about post-leftism, so I'm gonna ask a few questions.

For starters, here is the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-leftism

It's title is "post leftist anarchism"- is post leftism a thing that is pretty much limited to anarchists?

Some people here say that we need to abandon or destroy the left, in favor of going to the actually oppressed groups. Is this post-leftism?

If I disagree with about half of post-leftist theory, what would that make me?

Is there a single attribute that is considered most important to be a post-leftist? Like, if I agree with that principle, I'm a post-leftist, even if I disagree with most of the rest of the theory?

Thank you for your time!

[G4b3n]

Its seems to me like a few non doctrine unorthodox anarchist tendencies, nothing too exceptionally different from past individualist anarchism.

[MarxArchist]

The main theorists are idealists who almost completely reject historical materialism but they were a product of the new left and it's abysmal position that (mostly white) workers in the first world can no longer be a revolutionary 'class' (most post left anarchists being white doesn't escape me). In Oakland this manifested in Anarchists supporting/pushing for the "Decolonize Oakland" split. Honestly these people are a part of why I rejected anarchism even though they're a minority. There are a few on this forum. I don't get along with them. Part of the main gist is consumerism, more specifically, workers in the west "becoming one" with the products we consume has been at the heart of an impotent working class. This was Marcuse' influence on these anarchists but they take it further and reject materialist analysis for more philosophical or metaphysical individualism. You know, lifestyle politics, where I live mostly borderline gutter punk culture. They have nothing to offer but fractionalized discontent with just about everything and no organizational model for revolution or even goals that align with communism (other than a generic sense of liberation, from EVERYTHING. Quite utopian really). Like the older individualist anarchist tradition they too would have a place in a communist society but they would actually be agitating against most things in a communist society. It's like they think they're evolved 300 years down the future. Social evolution takes time and some of the more primitivist ones can go ahead and reject, right now, all of the perks agriculture has given them and then come talk to me about devolving all the way back to pre agricultural society.

[Remus Bleys]

So what differentiates them from primitivists?

[MarxArchist]

So what differentiates them from primitivists?

Closely intersecting circles of ideas means there's separation within the post left sphere. Not every person who identifies as 'post left' will be a primitivist. The ones I've meet have mostly been early 20's DIY punk culture youth with no real sense of theory but the ones who do have a sense of social theory (I've met/know about 20 who do) are idealists and reject materialist analysis for their own opinion on things. Some are of the opinion civilization must go. Others simply think work must go. Some simply think every last single form of hierarchy must go and the individual must reign supreme. Some (rightly) finger agriculture as the source of social hierarchy and thus (wrongly) seek to create a wold mirroring pre agriculture history. It's a hodgepodge of ideas. Mostly a mixture of New Left Neo Luddites with a lopsided focus on privilege theory.

[Ele'ill]

these might be useful
http://anarchy101.org/1312/what-are-some-definitive-post-left-texts

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/post-left

http://anarchy101.org/289/when-post-left-thought-first-emerge-some-influential-writers

http://anarchy101.org/search?q=post-left

[baronci]

The main theorists are idealists who almost completely reject historical materialism but they were a product of the new left and it's abysmal position that (mostly white) workers in the first world can no longer be a revolutionary 'class' (most post left anarchists being white doesn't escape me).

this really is not accurate at all, don't post an answer in the "Learning" forum if all you have to say is a complete lie.

anyway, I'm not necessarily a post-left anarchist but I think they have a lot of good points to be made. "the left" as we know it has always been a haven for bourgeois ideology and seeks to impose its political ambitions on the working class

[MarxArchist]

this really is not accurate at all, don't post an answer in the "Learning" forum if all you have to say is a complete lie.

anyway, I'm not necessarily a post-left anarchist but I think they have a lot of good points to be made. "the left" as we know it has always been a haven for bourgeois ideology and seeks to impose its political ambitions on the working class
You know nothing John Snow. You're the same person who just said anarcho syndicalism is a cousin of capitalism. Much learning to do this one has. I'm willing to discuss the issue without, lets say, anymore aggressive posturing if possible. In any event the idealism comes into play with their focus on philosophy and using lifestyle to affect social change, also, the thought that we can just jump right into anarchism. Even the idea of what anarchism is becomes rather steeped in idealism. What liberation is, what liberation is possible, what liberation is desirable, what form of liberation can actually be won and how. Stirner himself could only come up with "a union of egoists" as a solution. "Self-awareness, ones own perception, was the creative force of history, the most important driving force being the individuals will to create what they envisioned in their mind, the individuals interpretation of society. This is idealism. This "union Of Egoists". "A free society can only be created via a union of various individuals working together with their own interpretation of the world". In fact, I consider it extreme idealism. As did Marx.

Read this book:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm)

The Frankfurt School ie New Left was also an influence and that's where Marcuse' theories surrounding oppression or the most oppressed in society being the only agent of revolutionary change comes into play in 'post leftist' theory. It's led many of them to adopt privilege theory as a basis of organizing against capitalism. Mix this with an 'autonomous' blob of views on what should be done, what's possible, what sort of liberation is desirable and how to achieve it and we see, in practice, as we did with "Decolonize Oakland" the problems of this organizational tactic manifest. Obviously me rejecting anarchism a long time ago and adopting Marxism I'm going to be critical of them (but not necessarily anarchism as a whole- I see them as the worst sort of Anarchist that can be). Anarcho syndicalists and communists are OK with me.